inthehallwaynow Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 WHY do people post on some of these threads just to exercise and sharpen their arguing skills? nothing nice to say.. anyway yea i expect to see a leak of tre like a week or so before the official release but yah never know fo sho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooooooooooooom Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 A school that has a good journalism program. Yes, but learning how to communicate and judging music are completely different things. Journalism programs teach you how to write, music programs teach you about music theory. An opinion is valid in whatever form, as equally valid as someone who is an 'expert' (how you can be an expert in music is beyond me, what with it being ever changing and new) or can express it in a much more interllectual manner. There are no wrong or right opinions, there are more qualified and less qualified opinions. I didn't say anything about things becoming hits or not I was referring to critics outside knowledge of what takes more time to create and what is more innovative. I completely disagree with your whole argument; music is all about opinions (thats why some people like rap, or rock, or pop, or blues etc). If what you're saying is true, surely every single critic will feel the same about every album? This is never the case, because music is not formulaic or structured; it is art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerardsangel4977 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You are really selling the critics short. Maybe you don't like them or what they have to say about some artists but this is just plain ridiculous. The average reviewer is in a better position to judge music than the average person even if it's only out of practice. To assume that reviews are written based on such strong bias shows a lack of understanding. It's also closed minded to say that if a reviewer has ever disagreed wit you then you should ignore them. Why? Did they disagree with you because they put more weight on a certain song, lyrics, style? Is someone automatically invalidated in the future if they disagreed with you in the past? A lot of people on here seem to think critics are just assholes bred to hate green day. That's why people tend to ignore the bad reviews and heap praise upon the good ones. The reaction to a 3/5 here was ridiculous. No one had even heard the record yet and they were already disagreeing. How can you even do that? That's ludicrous. Whose opinion would you trust more on engineering-- Someone who has studied the subject or a kid who likes math? Not all opinions are created equal. Everyone can have one, but that doesn't make them equal. I'm not suggesting that if you disagree with a critic, you're wrong. However, the average person's opinion does and should hold less weight. You are truly dense, you know that? Your comparison of music critics to engineers is asinine because critics don't study *music*; they study *journalism*. Sure, they may have taken some music history courses as electives--maybe even have a concentration or a minor in it--as those things would all add to their qualifications and make them look better on a resume (especially if they're applying for a music publication rather than a general entertainment publication or a newspaper), but it's not a requirement. And, by and large, they are not, NOT, music majors. And this is doubly evident in the things they choose to comment on in said reviews: They talk about subject matter and lyrics and genres and make comparisons between songs and artists to give people an idea of what the music sounds like. But the technical stuff? That pretty much never comes up. Why? Because that's not their area of expertise. Writing is. And I'm not saying this because I "hate critics"; I'm saying it as someone who *has* a Journalism degree and has written reviews before or my university's paper and who knows other people who work in that field and/or are aspiring to. Trust me, I know *exactly* the sort of people these professions attract and the sort who actually work in them. I consider them peers, for the most part. So, no, I am not "selling them short", but I'm not elevating them above their station either. Also, as I've already explained, in detail, the purpose of a critic is to make recommendations for their readers on what to buy and what not to buy. If I have a friend who listens to a lot of rap/hip-hop but hates punk/rock, I'm not going to go asking them what new bands I should check out. Likewise, since I'm not into the whole hipster mentality, I wouldn't ask a hipster what to listen to either (especially as they'd probably scoff at me and tell me to throw out half my album collection first). The same concept applies to critics: If a critic values different things in music than you do, especially if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with their assessment of things, then you shouldn't follow their recommendations. It's that simple. For example, I find that I generally agree with Rolling Stones reviews, so if I'm on the fence about something, I'll see what they have to say on it and use it to help make up my mind. I would not, however, go to NME as I typically find them overly pretentious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBaboon Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You are truly dense, you know that? Your comparison of music critics to engineers is asinine because critics don't study *music*; they study *journalism*. Sure, they may have taken some music history courses as electives--maybe even have a concentration or a minor in it--as those things would all add to their qualifications and make them look better on a resume (especially if they're applying for a music publication rather than a general entertainment publication or a newspaper), but it's not a requirement. And, by and large, they are not, NOT, music majors. And this is doubly evident in the things they choose to comment on in said reviews: They talk about subject matter and lyrics and genres and make comparisons between songs and artists to give people an idea of what the music sounds like. But the technical stuff? That pretty much never comes up. Why? Because that's not their area of expertise. Writing is. And I'm not saying this because I "hate critics"; I'm saying it as someone who *has* a Journalism degree and has written reviews before or my university's paper and who knows other people who work in that field and/or are aspiring to. Trust me, I know *exactly* the sort of people these professions attract and the sort who actually work in them. I consider them peers, for the most part. So, no, I am not "selling them short", but I'm not elevating them above their station either. Also, as I've already explained, in detail, the purpose of a critic is to make recommendations for their readers on what to buy and what not to buy. If I have a friend who listens to a lot of rap/hip-hop but hates punk/rock, I'm not going to go asking them what new bands I should check out. Likewise, since I'm not into the whole hipster mentality, I wouldn't ask a hipster what to listen to either (especially as they'd probably scoff at me and tell me to throw out half my album collection first). The same concept applies to critics: If a critic values different things in music than you do, especially if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with their assessment of things, then you shouldn't follow their recommendations. It's that simple. For example, I find that I generally agree with Rolling Stones reviews, so if I'm on the fence about something, I'll see what they have to say on it and use it to help make up my mind. I would not, however, go to NME as I typically find them overly pretentious. I'm going to leave you with a scenario to ponder. Someone has one green day album says its the best and owns two or three other records of some kind. Someone else has every green day album thinks nimrod is the best and has a few other band collections someone has every green day album thinks American idiot is the best and has a collection of thousands of other CDs comprised of various artists from various genres and walks of life. I know whose opinion I want to hear, the person who can make legitimate claims of quality and comparison because they have the background to do so. Forget about college reviewers were talking professional reviewers. They listen to hundreds of diverse albums a year in addition to whatever they have collected in their earlier life which is probably a considerable amount due to their passion for music. Like it or not their opinion is more valid than the average persons because they have the frame of reference to make educated claims. If you disagree with that you're to thick to be bothered with. Yes, but learning how to communicate and judging music are completely different things. Journalism programs teach you how to write, music programs teach you about music theory. An opinion is valid in whatever form, as equally valid as someone who is an 'expert' (how you can be an expert in music is beyond me, what with it being ever changing and new) or can express it in a much more interllectual manner. I completely disagree with your whole argument; music is all about opinions (thats why some people like rap, or rock, or pop, or blues etc). If what you're saying is true, surely every single critic will feel the same about every album? This is never the case, because music is not formulaic or structured; it is art. Often times critics give nearly uniform scores to albums. You're correct that it doesn't happen every time but that's generally for theodore of the road albums. Bad albums get uniform bad scores and good albums get uniform good ones with maybe a single outlier. The average albums will get reviewed a little above average and a little below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clockwise Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm going to leave you with a scenario to ponder. Someone has one green day album says its the best and owns two or three other records of some kind. Someone else has every green day album thinks nimrod is the best and has a few other band collections someone has every green day album thinks American idiot is the best and has a collection of thousands of other CDs comprised of various artists from various genres and walks of life. I know whose opinion I want to hear, the person who can make legitimate claims of quality and comparison because they have the background to do so. Forget about college reviewers were talking professional reviewers. They listen to hundreds of diverse albums a year in addition to whatever they have collected in their earlier life which is probably a considerable amount due to their passion for music. Like it or not their opinion is more valid than the average persons because they have the frame of reference to make educated claims. If you disagree with that you're to thick to be bothered with. Still wrong. Their opinion is valued more by YOU, because critics are who you usually agree with. These are things you care about from a review, not what everybody ever wants from a review. Even if somebody only owns a few Green Day records and otherwise is a casual music fan, their opinion is just as valid as a critic, because that's their opinion and it rings true for them. You very apparently value a critic's opinion more because of reasons listed above, but in absolutely no way does that make their opinion more valid than anyone elses. It's just what you value and what kind of person YOU want to hear about music from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justcause Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 For example, I find that I generally agree with Rolling Stones reviews, so if I'm on the fence about something, I'll see what they have to say on it and use it to help make up my mind. I would not, however, go to NME as I typically find them overly pretentious. I tend to go with if someone's bigging something up, I'll give it a listen, because they're bringing it to my attention, and then I'll make my own mind up about it. Rolling Stone is - I dunno, most times I find it a little tame and 'tasteful', NME is cheap and cheerful and sometimes they have good feature articles. Basically, I look to the music press to bring up stuff I might otherwise not have heard of, so I can give them a chance and maybe find something new. I take every critic with a pinch of salt, and I wouldn't dream of holding any of their opinions higher than my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBaboon Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Still wrong. Their opinion is valued more by YOU, because critics are who you usually agree with. These are things you care about from a review, not what everybody ever wants from a review. Even if somebody only owns a few Green Day records and otherwise is a casual music fan, their opinion is just as valid as a critic, because that's their opinion and it rings true for them. You very apparently value a critic's opinion more because of reasons listed above, but in absolutely no way does that make their opinion more valid than anyone elses. It's just what you value and what kind of person YOU want to hear about music from. Yes I would rather get informed opinions than uninformed ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerardsangel4977 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm going to leave you with a scenario to ponder. Someone has one green day album says its the best and owns two or three other records of some kind. Someone else has every green day album thinks nimrod is the best and has a few other band collections someone has every green day album thinks American idiot is the best and has a collection of thousands of other CDs comprised of various artists from various genres and walks of life. I know whose opinion I want to hear, the person who can make legitimate claims of quality and comparison because they have the background to do so. Forget about college reviewers were talking professional reviewers. They listen to hundreds of diverse albums a year in addition to whatever they have collected in their earlier life which is probably a considerable amount due to their passion for music. Like it or not their opinion is more valid than the average persons because they have the frame of reference to make educated claims. If you disagree with that you're to thick to be bothered with. Often times critics give nearly uniform scores to albums. You're correct that it doesn't happen every time but that's generally for theodore of the road albums. Bad albums get uniform bad scores and good albums get uniform good ones with maybe a single outlier. The average albums will get reviewed a little above average and a little below. I honestly don't even know why I'm bothering to argue with you. It's hilarious, actually, because, according to everything you've said here and previously, my opinion is worth more than yours. I should just leave you to it and remember it if we disagree later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clockwise Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Yes I would rather get informed opinions than uninformed ones. There we go. It all just comes down to what you prefer, but believe it or not, everyone's opinion is valid. Even people's opinions who haven't been exposed to a variety of music, their opinion is still valid. Can we agree on that now? That just because someone has a passion for lots of different types of music/studied journalism does not mean their opinions is any more valid than a fanboy's, you just prefer to listen to a critic's opinion because of the reasons you listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerardsangel4977 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I tend to go with if someone's bigging something up, I'll give it a listen, because they're bringing it to my attention, and then I'll make my own mind up about it. Rolling Stone is - I dunno, most times I find it a little tame and 'tastefull', NME is cheap and cheerful and sometimes they have good feature articles. Basically, I look to the music press to bring up stuff I might otherwise not have heard of, so I can give them a chance and maybe find something new. I take every critic with a pinch of salt, and I wouldn't dream of holding any of their opinions higher than my own. Precisely. They're meant to be an aid to finding music or movies or what have you. That's the way they're *supposed* to be used. The fact that they are also considered tastemakers is more of a societal byproduct, not a law to which the rest of us have to adhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayish Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 They don't teach reviewing in journalism though... You can take magazine writing classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTH Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 so... this fight is still going on? interesting. see you in a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayish Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 lock this thread. whole site is filling up with goons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Shluffy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Certainly reviewers are more qualified than the average person to write reviews about albums, because that's their fucking job. But no one in the world is more qualified than anyone else to determine the empirical quality of an album because music is subjective. No one song or no one anything can be absolutely proved to be empirically better in the field of music. (unless we're talking Green Day, cause of course, they're phenomenal, but I digress) A reviewer's opinion that Dos is shitty or awesome is no more or less valid than a fan's opinion that Dos is shitty/awesome and vice versa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdlyon Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share Posted November 23, 2012 So... the review... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desecrator09 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 lol at people on the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayish Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 lol at people on the Internet. laughing at yourself breh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.